Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study - Summary repor

2

southwest southwe

multi-state multi-sta

rail planning study | S

September 2014

Amtrak • Arizona Department of Transportation • BNSF Railway Company • California High-Speed Rail Aut

• Caltrain • Caltrans • Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority • Denver Regional Council of Governments

Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization • XpressWest • Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transporta

Authority • Maricopa Association of Governments • Mid Region Council of Governments • Nevada Depar

of Transportation • Orange County Transportation Authority • Regional Transportation Commission of Sout

Nevada • San Diego Association of Governments • Southern California Association of Governments •

Pacific Railroad • Utah Transit Authority • Washoe County Regional Transportation Commi

in collaboration with:
Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study - Summary repor

2

Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study - Summary repor

Study Purpose and Objectiv

The SW Study had two primary objective

  Identify potential multi-state network 

“candidate corridors” for further evaluation and 

planning, utilizing a new sketch-planning network 

planning tool.

  Identify institutional challenges and opportuniti

related to multi-state rail development and 

delivery.

1

2

Figure 1: SW Study Area & Extended Study 

1 While this is the FRA’s first regional rail planning study, it is not the firs

FRA study to analyze network effects in passenger rail planning. For

example, FRA’s 1997 document, High Speed Ground Transportat

in America, examines the economics of bringing high-speed ground

transportation to well-populated groups of cities throughout the U.S. Th

report can be found at https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L0251

study backgroun

The Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study (SW Study

is the first high-performance rail (HPR) network planning

study led by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).

FRA initiated the SW Study concurrent with its nationa

planning effort to develop a toolkit for the conceptual 

planning of HPR networks at the multi-state and megaregional level. The toolkit includes a newly develope

CONceptual NEtwork Connections Tool (CONN

can help analyze the performance of HPR corridors and

networks. The SW Study is a test case for the guidelines

tools, and performance standards developed in FRA’s

national planning effort. 

This document summarizes the SW Study process

planning context, recommendations, and lessons learned 

that can be a model for similar efforts in other regions. 

Study Overvie

As shown in Figure 1, the SW Study Area included t

States of Arizona, California, and Nevada. The stu

area was extended to consider connections to the States 

of Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. Representative

from key transportation organizations across these states 

worked through challenges of developing multi-state rail 

plans and outlined a common preliminary technical vision 

for HPR in the Southwest as part of this Study. The Stud

demonstrates an analytical framework for developing 

early-stage HPR network planning concepts and examining

the institutional context for establishing and implementing 

a long-range rail vision. 

Why the Southwest

The Southwest region was selected as the setting for

the first, and prototype, multi-state rail planning study 

due to the longstanding interest in the development of 

rail services by the region’s states and localities. Arizona,

California, and Nevada have existing passenger rail

services as well as plans to develop enhanced intercity 

passenger rail, commuter rail, and dedicated high speed 

rail (HSR) services
Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study - Summary repor

3

Study Proces

Over a seven-month duration, the SW Study tea

• Created and analyzed an inventory of previous longdistance travel studies in the area,

• Identified recent trends and market underpinnings of

potential future travel and economic activity,

• Applied an innovative network planning tool to

undertake a sketch-plan evaluation of a range of 

options for serving 50-year forecasts of intercity 

travel needs, and

• Facilitated working sessions and workshops 

where an informal volunteer stakeholder group 

representing a broad sphere of interests helped 

shape the study’s findings.

The SW Study was directed by a rich and ongoing progra

of stakeholder engagement. From the outset of the Study 

and throughout the effort, a diverse, volunteer group of 

executive leaders and staff representing state departments 

of transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, 

Figure 2: “TIER 0” Regional Rail Plan In

WHERE WE ARE TODAY IN THE SOUTHWEST

BASELINE

Current conditions

Multimodal context

Rail market potential

GOVERNANACE

GENERALIZED

SERVICE PLAN

PRIORITIZED

INVESTMENTS & MAP

FINANCING STRATEGIES

Draft

“TIER 0”

Regional

Rail Plan

Adopted

“TIER 0”

Regional

Rail Plan

STATE-BY-STATE

ADOPTION

Including incorporation

into STIPs & State Rail Plans

as needed

Salt Lake City

councils of government, transit agencies, Amtrak, freight

railroads, and private rail developers (Table 1 on the next

page) offered continuing support for the effort – reviewing 

interim reports and advising the Study Team on next

steps. Stakeholder engagement covered a period of 

seven months, commencing with a kickoff teleconference, 

followed by five workshops timed with Study milestones 

and analysis steps. It should be noted that this preliminary

phase of study was limited to technical staff. Future efforts 

will engage a broader audience and seek to identify local 

champions of a HPR network in the region

The SW Study is the test case for one step in a large

potential approach to multi-state regional planning for 

HPR, as shown in Figure 2 below. The end result of thi

Study provides a model baseline for other regions of the 

US to use for illustrating current conditions, a multimodal

context, and rail market potential as a baseline input to a 

FRA “Tier 0” Regional Rail Pla
Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study - Summary repor

4

Guiding Principl

The SW Study involved an integrated program of technica

analyses and stakeholder input, framed by four Guiding

Principles prepared through early stakeholder input. The

Principles below are the public investment themes and rail 

service goals that set a broad interagency policy context 

for the effort.

1

2

3

4

S

Support development of safe, reliable, 

efficient, and inter-connected multi-modal 

travel options.

Balanc

Balance providing a premier transportation 

system with the duty to be responsible 

stewards of public dollars. Consider 

factors such as return on investment, cost 

effectiveness, and modal alternatives when 

developing the network.

Envisi

Envision a preliminary multi-state rail

network that supports environmental, social, 

and economic sustainability.

Encourag

Encourage cross-state coordination to

achieve the most optimal outcomes in 

network planning.

Table 1: Stakeholder Organizatio

• Amtra

• Arizona Department of Transportati

• BNSF Railway Company

• California High-Speed Rail Authorit

• Caltrain 

• Caltrans 

• Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority

• Denver Regional Council of Government

• Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization

• DesertXpress (a.k.a., XpressWes

• Los Angeles County Metropolit

Transportation Authorit

• Maricopa Association of Government

• Mid Region Council of Government

• Nevada Department of Transportat

• Orange County Transportation Authori

• Regional Transportation Commissio

of Southern Nevada

• San Diego Association of Governmen

• Southern California Association of Government

• Union Pacific Railroad

• Utah Transit Authori

• Washoe County Regiona

Transportation Commissio
Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study - Summary repor

5

Planning Conte

Regional land development patterns, demographics, and 

intercity economic linkages define the context for intercity 

passenger travel demand, the market for rail service, and 

the prospects for HPR success.

Land Development Patte

The primary study area for the SW Study Ar

encompasses over 379,000 square miles and also includes 

3 of the nation’s 11 megaregions—Northern California,

Southern California, and the Arizona Sun Corridor. Wit

a concentration of multiple metropolitan areas and their 

central business districts within corridors or networks of 

100 to 600 miles, these megaregions are representative 

of areas where HPR networks could be successful. HP

could strengthen connectivity, and a dramatic reduction 

in travel times could help improve the economies of each 

megaregion and foster linkages for one supermegaregion.

Demographic

The SW Study Area contains some of the highest grow

areas in the US, as Nevada and Arizona were the t

fastest-growing states in the country between 2000 and 

2010, with population growth rates of 35 and 25 percent, 

respectively. California continues to be the most populous 

state in the country, with its 3.4 million new residents over 

the 2000-2010 period representing 12.4 percent of the 

Nation’s total population growth.2 Significant growth is

expected through 2050. 

As shown in Figure 3, within the Study Area, populatio

is concentrated in relatively small percentages of the 

land area. In 2010, roughly 94 percent of the SW Stud

Area’s population was located in the census-defined

urbanized areas,3 while those urbanized areas accounted 

for just three percent of the total land area in the three 

states.4 Population density is important, as rail is often 

most efficient when it is serving dense concentrations of 

population and economic activity. 

Economic Activit

With a combined gross domestic product of $2.3 trillion,

the local, regional, and state economies of the SW Study

Area represent 15.7 percent of the total U.S. economy

If these three states were a country, they would be the

sixth largest economy in the world, similar to the United

Kingdom and 40 percent larger than Canada.6

 Viewed this 

way, the Southwest is the largest economy in the world 

that does not currently have dedicated HS

2 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Distribution and Change: 2000 to 2010

March 2011 

3

 For the 2010 Census, the Census Bureau defines urban areas as all 

urbanized areas and urban clusters. These are densely developed

territory and encompass residential, commercial, and other nonresidential 

urban land uses. Urbanized areas have 50,000 or more people and urban

clusters have at least 2,500 but less than 50,000 people.

4 U.S. Census Bureau, Lists of Population, Land Area, and Percent U

and Rural in 2010, Percent Urban and Rural in 2010 by State

www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/2010urbanruralclass.html 

5 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2010 Gross Domestic Product 6 Analysis based on 2010 GDP by country data from The Wo

available at http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.G

countries

Figure 3: Population density

Source: 2010 Census data, U.S. Census Bureau. In many instances dot

overlap in this map, which may give the appearance of a smaller than 

actual population.
Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study - Summary repor

6

Existing and Forecast Trav

With forecasts of sustained population growth and

growing economic integration among metropolitan areas 

and States within the Study Area, there is great potential

for significant growth in intercity travel across all modes 

between 2010 and 2050. This growth could be as high

as 70 percent, increasing from 162 million to 273 million 

trips per year. Annual trips via air could more than triple

over the period; from 27 million in 2010 to 84 million by 

2050, with trips via auto possibly rising 42 percent over 

the period.7 While auto will remain the predominant mode

for intercity travel in the Study Area, increased travel over

longer distances suggests that air travel could gain a larger 

share of the intercity market without new rail investments.

Within the entire Study Area, there is considerabl

concentration of travel among selected city pairs. Trips

between just six metropolitan areas account for 44 percent 

of all intercity trip-making of 50 to 800 miles between all 

metropolitan areas in the extended Study Area.8 Give

the course of expected development, this pattern could 

continue into the future. Figure 4 below illustrates the 

potential future scale of travel between these large areas, 

within which, travel to/from Greater Los Angeles is t

largest intercity travel market – suggesting significant 

potential for HPR

7 All travel demand figures presented in this report are for intercity trips

between 50 and 800 miles. Trips less than 50 miles generally are not

considered intercity travel and rail is typically not time-competitive with 

air on distances greater than 800 miles.

8

 CONNECT Beta Version,

Figure 4: Total trips between selected MS

Source: CONNECT Beta Version,

*Only a small number of MSAs are presented i

this graphic to enhance visual clarity. Other MSAs

such as the Inland Empire and Sacramento, als

generate a large number of trips to other MSAs
Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study - Summary repor

7

Table 2: Definitions of high performance rail (HPR) service ti

Regional

corridors

90-125 Frequent service; dedicated 

and shared tracks; electricand diesel-powered

Connecting mid-sized urban 

areas with each other or with 

larger metropolitan areas

95%

Emerging/Feede

Corridors

Up to 90 Shared tracks Connecting mid-sized and

smaller urban areas with 

each other or with larger 

metropolitan areas

85%*

TOP

(M

O

CH

PR

S

M

TAR

PE

Core Expres

Corridors

Over 125 Frequent service; dedicated

tracks, except in terminal 

areas; electric-powered

Serving major metropolitan 

centers

99%

*On-time performance target might increase in the future

Preliminary Network Vis

The preliminary network vision for HPR in the Southwes

was developed through a comprehensive stakeholder 

engagement process and a performance analysis informed 

by outputs from CONNECT. FRA convened representa

from a diverse range of entities in the Southwest with an 

interest in HPR to develop the preliminary vision. Over th

course of multiple workshops, stakeholders collaborated to 

identify potential network connections through an analysis 

of the existing and forecast demographic trends and travel 

patterns, economic activity, and noted capacity constraints 

in the current and planned transportation network.

In 2009, FRA established classifications of the service

contemplated in a multi-state rail plan.9 The varying stages

of development of HPR corridors across the country

provide clear and consistent examples of HPR service

levels. HPR corridors fall into three distinct service tiers

Core Express, Regional, and Emerging/Feeder. The thr

HPR service tiers encompass regular intercity passenger

rail services as well as higher speed services. Each tier is

defined by features including corridor length, top speeds, 

presence of dedicated track, population served, service 

frequency, and minimum reliability targets. The long-term

HPR network vision presented in a multi-state plan defines

each corridor within the overarching network in terms 

of the service tiers. Table 2 below describes these three

general types of high-performance passenger rail service.

9 Federal Railroad Administration, High-Speed Rail in America, HighSpeed Rail Strategic Plan, April 2009, http://www.fra.dot.gov

Details/L028
Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study - Summary repor

8

Network Analysis Appro

CONNECT supports rail corridor studies by estimating 

coarse, sketch plan level, the relative impacts of alternative 

rail network and service plans on future ridership, revenue, 

capital, operating, and maintenance costs, as well as 

overall financial performance of each option. Focusing 

on markets separated by at least 50 miles, CO

is a low-resolution network analysis tool suitable for 

sketch planning at the mega-region/multi-state level and 

is intended for use at the very outset of the planning 

process, before decisions on alignments, service plans 

and exact station locations are made. It is used to reduce

a wide range of options to a smaller subset of the most 

reasonable of alternatives for more detailed study.

Rail Network Service Concep

One potential conceptual regional rail network developed

by Study stakeholders along with preliminary benefits 

is presented in Figure 5 (next page). These candidate

proposals were developed in consideration of the earlystage, preliminary assessment of ridership potential 

within each corridor, as well as each corridor’s potential 

contribution to the service quality of other corridors and 

for the SW Study Area as a whole A comparison of t

performance of all 11 corridors as a stand-alone corridor 

versus a full network showed that connectivity associated 

with the full network yields higher ridership and revenues 

and lower capital and O&M costs

Several corridors are depicted as Regional, indicating that 

these might start as Regional corridors, potentially growing 

into Core Express based on other investments in the

network. Alternatively, these could exist as hybrid corridors

with Core Express equipment operating through service

at reduced speeds mixed with commuter or traditional 

intercity service, sometimes labeled “blended service.” 

This map displays one possible approach to rail based on

high-level sketch planning analyses. It also demonstrates

that, when employed at levels appropriate to demand, 

rail can play an important role in meeting the Southwest’s 

future transportation needs.

governance consideratio

Concurrent to the development of the network vision, 

stakeholders identified key issues and potential 

governance structures needed for advancing a broad, 

multi-state vision and to help ensure the success of 

HPR projects that cross state lines. They also define

alternative governance models that could provide a 

flexible framework for making key decisions as projects are 

developed. 

Two key recommendations emerged, focused on the

relatively near-term:

Convene a voluntary California-Arizona-Nev

Passenger Rail Policy and Planning Group. In

membership of the Policy and Planning Group might

include stakeholders who participated in the SW Study.

Among this group’s charge could be implementing next

steps emerging from the SW Study an

developing, and potentially implementing, a broader 

strategy to engage elected officials, the business 

community, and the public in refining the preliminary 

vision.

Form a Blue Ribbon Commission to guide a Phoe

Southern California Corridor study over an 18-mont

schedule. The Blue Ribbon Commission might include

leaders such as local elected officials and gubernatorial 

appointees and be supported by a planning/technical 

committee including MPO and state department of

transportation (DOT) staff for evaluation and analysi

Additional detail on these recommendations is provided in

the full SW Study Technical Background Repor
Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study - Summary repor

9

Source: CONNECT Beta Version,

*Figure identifies desired connections between metropolitan areas. It does not identify alignment or station locations and does not preclude

multiple alignments within a corridor segment.

Figure 5: Corridor considerations for further study

Potential Benefits of Preliminary Network Vision_____________________________________________________________

*Data derived from CONNECT analysis of corridors identified in Fig
Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study - Summary repor

10

implementation strategi

Conceptual planning analysis performed in the S

Study indicates there are several multi-state corridors in 

the Southwest that could address increasing constraints 

on the transportation network and thus warrant further 

study in advance of possible new rail investments. 

Together, the Preliminary Network Vision and Governan

Considerations outline a broad, long term concept for a 

multi-state HPR network in the Southwest and coordination

across state lines in its planning and delivery. 

Stakeholders identified the two following strategies 

to sustain momentum in regional rail planning in the 

Southwest US and bridge the conclusion of this phase of

study with potential future efforts.

Integrate the Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning St

into Existing and Ongoing Transportation Plann

Efforts. In the near term, findings and recommendation

from this study could be considered in individual State 

Rail Plans as well as other ongoing state and regional 

planning efforts. In addition, while this study performed

an initial assessment of rail corridor potential against a 

set of performance metrics, further study is needed to 

analyze whether other modes could present more costeffective investment solutions, as well as the implications 

of not making new infrastructure investments. While this is

a recommendation for subsequent phases of planning, it 

may also be incorporated into ongoing corridor planning 

studies.

Establish a Southwest Rail Working Group

Initiate Implementation of the Study’s Governan

Recommendations. This working group’s charge migh

include:

• Developing a strategic implementation plan for

advancing the study recommendations. This would

include laying the groundwork for the CaliforniaArizona-Nevada Passenger Rail Policy and Plannin

Group identified in the Governance Considerations

identifying participants, determining the need for 

a formal agreement mechanism (e.g., MOU), an

refining roles and responsibilities.

• Crafting a mission statement and distinct goals and 

objectives for the Southwest rail network.

• Initiating development of a compelling busines

case for the Southwest rail network. This should

include near-term “wins” that demonstrate the 

benefits of multi-state coordination.

• Exploring potential state and local funding sources

to fund future multi-state planning efforts.

• Initiating a broad-based outreach program that

engages stakeholders such as elected officials, the 

private sector, and the public in future rail network 

development efforts. Understanding changes in

traveler preferences, cost efficiencies and sustainable 

options are important aspects to effective outreach. 

• Championing the creation of the Blue Ribbon 

Commission for the Phoenix-Southern California 

corridor study. 

STRA

STRA
Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study - Summary repor

11

Lessons Le

and Conclusio

The SW Study demonstrates the importance of conductin

long-range planning for high performance rail corridors 

within the context of an integrated multi-state or regional 

network. As a test case to develop an analytical framework

and understanding of the institutional context for 

establishing and implementing a long-range rail vision, the 

Study yielded lessons learned that can be applied in other 

regions. If a similar effort was to be conducted elsewhere,

the following could be considered:

• Provide a clear definition for stakeholders of what

can reasonably be accomplished within this level 

of study and what topics may be more suitable for 

future phases. Future studies should communicate 

the limits of the study at the outset and clearly map 

out the intended outcome. 

• Incorporate other modes into multi-state rail

planning including potential involvement from other 

modal administrations.

• Identify how and to what extent other entities can

be engaged during future initial multi-state planning 

efforts. Broader input may be needed before visions 

are formally adopted.

• Recognize importance of federal involvement

in multi-state rail planning, with FRA continuing

to serve as a facilitator and provide a forum for 

stakeholders to discuss key issues relevant to HPR

network planning.

• Initiate development of goals and a Purpose an

Need forHPR early in the multi-state rail plann

process; a series of guiding principles can be used 

as a starting point to engage other stakeholders and 

develop distinct goal statements in future phases of 

study.

• Focus stakeholder engagement efforts on inperson workshops.Teleconferences and webinars

proved not to be effective means for engaging 

stakeholders and furthering study progress relative 

to face-to-face meetings. 

• IntroduceCONNECT in stages so stake

better understand its strengths and limitations

by the time the final results and network vision 

emerge. For future efforts, it is recommended that 

the introduction to CONNECT occur as early in

process as possible.

• Recognize that for governance, there is not a

one-size-fits-all approach. While activities such as

research and documentation of various governance 

typologies can be applied to other regions, the 

actual approach applied for future studies should be 

flexible enough to respond to a respective region’s 

needs.

The SW Study is important for both the progress it mad

as a model for future multi-state rail development and for 

creating and applying new rail planning methodologies. 

The Study was conducted from a multimodal

perspective, in recognition of the existing and projected 

development of highway and aviation facilities. Through a

comprehensive planning process involving data assembly, 

network usage forecasting, and stakeholder engagement, 

the SW Study was successful in developing candidate

options for further analysis towards a long-term vision. 

State and local officials can renew partnership efforts to 

build on the information developed in the SW Study,

through more detailed planning, to reach consensus on a 

Vision Plan for the region that can serve as a blueprint for 

future rail investment. This will include engaging a broader

audience, including elected officials, and seeking to find 

local champions to advance this final Vision Plan.